Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
But this also doesn't exclude Apple using qualified/certified 3rd party components in these "up to date" product SKU updates/upgrades. Apple has used Intel CPUs that simply plug-in. RAM DIMMs that plug-in.
Can't really really say it is completely excludes one way or the other.
The problem is that some folks what it is be extremists only on one side. Either user can unplug and substitute everything or user can't substitute anything. The previous Mac Pros 2006-2012 were not that extremist in that way either.
For the default GPU integrating into Thunderbolt is probably substantively cleaner if Apple does it themselves. That is primarily because the industry refuses to even talk about a clean solution there in standards space. PCI-e standard committee won't do it ( they don't even govern MXM cards). Where there is no standards group solving the problem Apple probably will simply just do it.
Where there are standards that work Apple has followed along. Apple put tons of work into USB Type-C. Do they only slavishly follow standards. No. DO they completely ignore them... again No.
Bluntly, much of this "Lego Block" Mac Pro stuff isn't generated by much by what Apple is saying at all. It appears far more so the 'easiest to draw/mock up" stuff that is substantively different enough from other stuff that other folks sell. From a computer design standpoint where actually taking the design constraints of the internal components into account several of them are just horrendously bad. Like perpetual motion machines in disregard for the real physical laws. Art class projects , not practical product design. It probably highly doesn't matter what Apple doesn't quite say, those will still very quickly turn into Art projects. They aren't listening carefully to "express", they are just "If I were a member of the Q Continuum this is what I would do. " projects.
The more probably core of Schiller is really getting at here is that they won't extremely tighly couple the CPU and GPU(s0 together in this next one. that way if the CPUs and GPUs go off on different thermal evolution paths then they can "efficiently keep it up to date". Upgrade smaller subsystems and then combine them. Subsystems don't have to be in whole separate boxes.
It is probably not that extreme either. It is highly likely that the RAM DIMMs are removable. The MP 2013 ; removable. The iMac Pro once inside ... removable. iMac 27 removable. Mac Mini 2018 .. once inside .. removable.
His specific example is only external. However, he also didn't state that was 100% all possible modularity. Again folks take things to extreme. Reading modularity and expanding to encompass 99% of everything internal. Not there either. But 100% only limited to external monitor, that just a low bar they may have set, but not necessarily indicative of what they are trying to clear.
Most of the problem here is not what Apple actually saying. It is the preconceived, staked-out (and sometimes extremist) viewpoints folks try to take what Apple says and stretch it like silly putty to conform to their (not Apple's) agenda.
Schiller is saying in part here that the monitor not being attached is a salient point. That way about 3 months later when they introduce the iMac Pro there won't be folks yelping about that it was the next Mac Pro. [ Didn't help completely .... posts to that ilk popped up here in this forum within an hour or two of the presentation. ]
the only thing I can say is ...
no matter what, pro mostly dont use apple software and most video software use cuda.
then the last 3 macpro (4.1/5.1/6.1) used pcie switch...
pcie 16 lane is the standard slot, anything is derivative from that.
it could be stackable or just one monolith, but pciex4 via thunderbolt is not enough to drive anything pro...
the new decklink 8k pro need pcie 8x.
so the only pragmatic thing would be to have a way to use the 64 pcie lane of new xeon W with a global pcie swich that allocate lane to what is pluged thru pcie slot.
this could be external or internal.
but if they want to go external then they have to go pcie x16...
no matter what, pro mostly dont use apple software and most video software use cuda.
then the last 3 macpro (4.1/5.1/6.1) used pcie switch...
pcie 16 lane is the standard slot, anything is derivative from that.
it could be stackable or just one monolith, but pciex4 via thunderbolt is not enough to drive anything pro...
the new decklink 8k pro need pcie 8x.
so the only pragmatic thing would be to have a way to use the 64 pcie lane of new xeon W with a global pcie swich that allocate lane to what is pluged thru pcie slot.
this could be external or internal.
but if they want to go external then they have to go pcie x16...
While Apple has been extremely low on details about the future product Mac Pro, they were no were near as low on details about the current Mac Pro.
There were a couple of points where they explicitly said that things didn't work out as well as they expected (or wanted) them too. If Apple is not trying to get the same results by repeating what didn't work a second time then there are some admittedly broad aspects can probably put done as extremely likely for the next Mac Pro.
1. Apple said duals turned out to not work well for a very broad group in the Mac Pro space. Some folks yes, but a substantive number of folks no so much.
So
a. Single GPU configures are extremely probably going to be the default configurations. ( back to 2009-2010 in that aspect).
b. a bit less probable, but still likely, there will be some dual GPU built to order (BTO) configurations. ( again back to the 2009-2010 in that aspect ).
I find it highly doubtful that Apple would completely abandon dual configuration. Especially with something like an Intel Xeon W (or higher) CPU. Yes there is much emphasis at Apple at the moment about eGPUs but one just isn't indicative of their commentary either. Dual wasn't a complete bust, just not good as the entry level baseline.
2. They are shooting for better than other Macs in bandwidth/performance. Given they leave some bandwidth (x20 PCI-e lanes worth) and under-clocked the CPU/GPU on the iMac Pro . They have also capped the iMac Pro around the same system power level as the MP 2013. They certainly have headroom to move into.
The notion that the Mac Pro is going to be some 400-450W system is pretty much unjustified if objectively look at what Apple said about "corners" that Apple walked itself into with the Mac Pro 2013 ( and somewhat again with the iMac Pro).
That doesn't mean they are shooting at the "biggest" workstation on the market that folks can imagine. Just more "horsepower" than what is currently in the line up in at least some respects. And certain way better than the 2010-2013 models (not that that is hard after almost 6+ years. )
3. A bit more squishy there is also a comment about the MP 2013 perhaps leaning a bit too much on Thunderbolt external storage. That probably means that just one internal SSD is somewhat of a problem. That doesn't necessarily mean four 3.5" HDD bays, but just one drive ( even with dual NAND daughter cards set up of the iMac Pro) is probably too narrow for the next Mac Pro ( otherwise just repeating the same issue. ). Even if SSDs are the future in the Mac line up, just one drive is a limitation. [ And Apple's SSD pricing policy just compounds that problem. ]
4. Also a bit in between the lines was that Apple wasn't 100% wrong with the Mac Pro 2013. Some folks try to paint the picture that Apple saw the Mac Pro 2013 as a 100% disaster. They didn't say that at all. Are they going to completely abandon Thunderbolt in next Mac Pro. Probably not ( you can see it in the the other Mac updates that have come). SSD boot drive. (nope. HDDs disappears from MBP, MacBook, MBA, iMac Pro and Mini. SSD boot drive is not a disaster at Apple at all. ). The outer case being removable from the Mac Pro 2013 ... not a disaster. ECC RAM .. not a problem.
Xeon E5/W class CPU just not fast enough. ... not a problem.
The list of things there were not highlighted as major problems is actually pretty long.
That doesn't paint a completely detailed picture of the next Mac Pro, but some of the really looney toons stuff being presented here in this forum isn't really objective at all.
I'd agree with a lot of that. The dual-GPU 'solution' for the 2013 was a bit ahead of its time in software terms, and fundamentally flawed in hardware. It's now more than viable, thanks to TB3 eGPU takeoff & broad OS & application support. No way are they going to drop Thunderbolt, it's the most flexible and powerful external expansion option out there. And why wouldn't certain customers want two internal GPUs and two eGPUs?
The view I'm taking with the wait.....given all the issues with the 2013, and the length of time that Apple took to acknowledge it, then the time to fix the mess they'd got themselves into...
If they were going to pull out of the workstation market, they were going to have done that already. Even given the tiny proportion of their business that the MP represents (even when it was the best buy on the market, back in 2006....), they want it to sell. Not merely to all those people who've been patiently waiting, that won't do enough IMHO, but (one would hope) they've considered why people have gone to hacks or jumped platform altogether, and aimed to meet those needs as well. They'll still want a new machine sooner or later....and again, given that wait, the noise made by media and analysts every time a competent or in any way underwhelming update is made, rather than a spectacular one, they can't really afford to get a 'good enough' product out of the door after this time. It's got to be great, or they might as well not have bothered, and they know it. When those supply chain ducks (I think Intel and AMD graphics division, not AMD or ARM CPUs) are all in a row, it'll be ready. They can't hope to please all of us lot, but they've got to give it a go nonetheless, or the rest of us will be jumping ship....
The MP7,1 could have been the "Mac Pro Late 2017" based on what could have quickly been done after the mea culpa.
The fact that two years later nothing has appeared is a strong hint that Apple *is* looking at looney toons stuff. It's just not that hard to put industry standard pieces together in an ATX chassis.
![Bugs_Bunny_Looney_tunes_wallpaper_2[1].jpg](https://forums.macrumors.com/data/attachments/740/740053-1ac53ad0527db2a2614ae3a1d861f692.jpg "Bugs_Bunny_Looney_tunes_wallpaper_2[1].jpg")
Apparently they are based on leaks, which is why several people have made stories about it. So don’t blame me if they turn out to be true. But as I said ‘apparently’.
And did I just say ‘kissing’!?!?
There won't be lots of separate boxes. The 'leaks' have been invented by people who heard the word modular, and imagined how they would do it.
The latest stupendously awful design in one of the videos linked now has it looking like a bunch of 15 year old Lacie drives stacked on top of each other.
Apple are all about minimalism.
Look at every product they sell.
It doesn't take in-depth thinking to understand that there won't be a stack of little boxes.
I disagree .
The real mistake here is people thinking that Apple has said anything about the future MP at all .
There simply is no information at all , just some lazy stalling tactics .
At the same time , there is a pretty clear understanding of what a modular workstation is supposed to be, and I for one don't really care what Apple's definition of it is .
[doublepost=1551883954][/doublepost]
Never assume past success is based on current competence ...
There’s also the possibility of apple changing course in the past three years.
I mean, they could have started with the second coming of the trashcan, realized they would end up with a machine plagued with similar problems to those of the tcMP and then start with a new design. Or the opposite, they started with a new cheesegrater and somewhere in 2017 his royal thinness decided the design didn’t sacrifice enough functionality to feed his ego, so they shelved the project and started with a design the size of an iPhone SE.
I mean, they could have started with the second coming of the trashcan, realized they would end up with a machine plagued with similar problems to those of the tcMP and then start with a new design. Or the opposite, they started with a new cheesegrater and somewhere in 2017 his royal thinness decided the design didn’t sacrifice enough functionality to feed his ego, so they shelved the project and started with a design the size of an iPhone SE.
It is ok that you do not care but you should be -very- worried because their definition will be the replacement for our old MPs. (or not
)
The iMac Pro is the machine you are describing, they release that Dec 2017, the question is, what's next?
The two years later isn't indicative of that at all. Your, I think gross, assumption is that Apple has 20-100 people working on this. Lots of evidence across the Mac product line indicates that is not the case. It isn't that Apple specifically "hates'" Mac Pro users. It is far more likely that the staffing levels are relatively down from what they once where. That a large chunk of the folks who are assigned to work on the iMac Pro as also assigned to work on the Mac Pro. If the Mini gets a deep redesign then the mainstream iMac doesn't . Same thing on laptop side. Apple can do either a MacBook, MacBook Air , or MacBook Pro major upgrade in any one year.
The looney toon notion that Apple has three separate and fully funded "Area 51" projects working on divergent versions of a new Mac Pro is whacked. There is almost no evidence that Apple has fully staffed even each of all the Mac projects in the line up with one dedicated team let alone three on just one product.
The Mac Pro is probably happening 2 years after 2017 because during 2016-2017 Apple was fully engaged on the iMac Pro . If the product are all treated pretty much serially then full speed on the next Mac Pro work probably didn't start until after the iMac Pro wrapped ( some ramp up with early design probably overlapped with finished the last set of cross t's and dot i's iMac Pro). Mac Pro probably didn't get assigns Industrial Design resources (that are another "chokepoint" ) until into early 2018 ( as they a myriad of other Apple products with priorities flowing through a relatively fixed sized 'politburo' )
The next Mac Pro probably isn't completely "off the shelf" parts but for the specific parts Apple would probably select to do themselves ( boot SSD, default GPU ) a 10-18 month window with a qualified team should have been enough. But that means they were actually working on it full time. Done majorly with highly part time staffing it will take longer without necessarily increasingly increasing the complexity.
I suspect your view is using anything other than what can find in the isle of Frys is the "looney toons" part. The probably with that is for he MacBook Pros that do have more strategic priority Apple does get things done more on time. All highly custom and make it out on time. iPhones ( where there probably are multiple , pipelined staged teams assigned to the product... yearly induction with highly custom changes regularly happen. Different doesn't mean slower at all if assign the proper resources and do the proper planning to get it done.
I don't think they are that far off. They've got iPad Pros running faster than 2017 MacBook Pros with GPU performance the same as a fat Xbox One S and that's from last year. The thing is 5.9mm thin! Give them a case even half the size of the old cheese grater Mac Pro and that thing is going to melt our faces off. Imagine a 64-core ARM 5nm chip with active cooling and all the cache and desktop fixins you could ever want. I'm sure they have some crazy stuff cooking in their labs. I think the argument for me is less about whether I need Intel vs. whether I want my machine to be unable to update to the latest version of macOS after a few years. But it's all about the implementation and how backwards compatible everything is and what their upgrade strategy looks like. I know with PPC to Intel, the support period for G5 wasn't great, only like two OS X versions I think.
I just want to buy a desktop that will last me 6-8 years that I can upgrade over time. One that is fast so I don't have to wait much, will work reasonably well with files from future gear that I buy (16-bit 80MP RAWs, 8K60 footage, who knows), is able to Bootcamp into Windows to do some gaming, and supports all the creative and development software that I use. I guess Intel would probably support gaming longer, but I could always just build a PC like I used to back in the day. I've been wanting to get back into PC gaming, but the most important thing is that it work as a Mac and enable me to get my work done quickly.
I really think it’s one guy in the basement next to the boiler room.
(After thought) no not basement boiler room, roof next to solar transformer.
(After thought) no not basement boiler room, roof next to solar transformer.
While possible it isn't really probable. If go back to the April 2017 transcript there are several things there that point to that Apple was:
1. Brushing several of the problems with the Mac Pro 2013 under the rug. (some amount of denial and kick the can down the road because maybe some new tech change in direction will save this. The AMD GPU options later didn't make the problem go away. and AMD got stuck for a while. )
Lots of haters of the Mac Pro 2013 design characterize it as being a complete fail for Apple. that isn't what they said.
"... Craig Federighi: I think initially, certainly from a market reception point of view, the current Mac Pro design was well received. It wasn’t that sales fell off at all. But the architecture, over time, proved to be less flexible to take us where we wanted to go to address that audience. In hindsight, we would’ve done that differently. Now we are. ..."
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/t...-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/
Some folks make it out that sales pragmatically completely flatlined in 2014 sometime. Apple hasn't confirmed that at all. If sales dropped off close to Apple's model of changes over age then there wouldn't have been the immediate 'crisis' that folks try to make it out to be. Some folks were/are trying to rationalize their "boycott' of Apple has having a much great impact that it really did.
2. That the primary pre late 2016-early 2017 solution they had for some of the Mac Pro 2013 problems was the iMac Pro.
( they explicit hint at they have been putting lots of work into a new, more "pro" iMac ).
Apple appears to have wanted a literal desktop Pro solution. The iMac Pro is a better literal desktop solution than the Mac Pro 2013. Then there is an issue if want a pro solution that isn't a literal desktop solution also. ( back to deskside or not )
3. Explicitly said it was relatively ( timescale more on a scale of months rather than years ) recent.
"
Lance Ulanoff (Mashable): I’m just curious, at what point did you realize that?
....
But at what moment in the product cycle did you think: ‘Oh… This is maybe not the end all, be all.’ Did that happen six months ago? Where did you get the telemetry that told you that?
Craig Federighi: I’d say longer than six months ago. ..
....
We did not fully come to terms with our need to do more until later than we’d like, with the implication that the next-generation Mac Pro that many of our customers — well, some of our customers, it’s relatively small in the grand scheme of things, but a very important group of our customers want — until quite a while from now. "
There are some indications that Apple wanted until they were mostly finished with the iMac Pro before they looked at "what part still not covered" was left.
The size of the "what is left over" isn't openly stated as being a factor but it probably is.
IMHO, over most of the last three years (2016-2019 ) they have known there was a hole that the iMac Pro probably wasn't going to cover. As the iMac Pro finished up the size and scope became more clear. That they are committed to an iMac Pro I don't think is a change in direction. Adding a new Mac Pro to cover what is "left over" isn't wouldn't really be a change. The Mac Pro being last in priority order would follow with the size of market addressing.
I think they are in a "measure twice, cut once" overdrive mode. That will expand the delivery time also without much change in direction.
The mac pro needs to have easy cpu / gpu bumps over time. Also an lower start point then the imac pro for storage / cpu / ram / GPU.
There are pro work loads that are more cpu based then GPU some that are big GPU but lower CPU.
Also storage pro's don't really 1 big non raid and NOT RAID 0 non fixable base disk.
Not at all. Probably the only components of a Z-series that you can find at Fry's are the DIMMs and disks (and maybe not even the disks, since most Z-disks aren't consumer grade). Newegg and CDW would stock the parts that are 3rd party, and maybe things like power supplies which tend to be specialized in better workstations.
The biggest thing would simply to be able to plug two to four GPUs of one's choosing - and not having to choose from the small set of emasculated GPUs from the second tier vendor that Apple blesses. (edit) Also, at least 36 TB of internal disk storage.
ps: I can't find the "Isle of Fry's" in Bing maps.
Last edited:
Not at all. Probably the only components of a Z-series that you can find at Fry's are the DIMMs and disks (and maybe not even the disks, since most Z-disks aren't consumer grade). Newegg and CDW would stock the parts that are 3rd party, and maybe things like power supplies which tend to be specialized in better workstations.
The biggest thing would simply to be able to plug two to four GPUs of one's choosing - and not having to choose from the small set of emasculated GPUs from the second tier vendor that Apple blesses.
ps: I can't find the "Isle of Fry's" in Bing maps.
https://www.yelp.com/biz/isle-fry-seafood-emerald-isle
I don't buy the counterarguments, it's not the 2 years since the mea culpa, that is really moving the goalpost to be favourable to one's argument. I can just as well say it has 7 years since the trashcan. Apple product cycles and development management, resource allocation, etc; they are held up as almost being immutable, that is far from the case. If a company really wanted to have a product on my desk in a timeline between 2 to 7 years, it would do so. Apple is not a start-up in this area. Taking their words at face value to dissect for rationalizing speculation is almost laughable.
At this point : Shut up and show me the product.
If the second anniversary of the mea culpa passes in early April without some announcement - it's time to place your orders for your Z-series.
Or, perhaps, order a (cancellable) Z-series before then so that you'll be ahead in the queue of the people who see the MP7.1 announcement and who say "oh my god no - order a Z right now".
